HB60 turns two this week. Two years after “alcohol and guns,” “guns everywhere,” and the requesite other images of doom and apocalypse. An apocalypse that, alongside the promised end of days after the Brexit, never happened. (The Big Three indexes closed the week with their best weekly gain this year.)
As I look back on the files, the lies, the promises of doom, and the subsequent utter lack of any blood-in-the-streets/Wild West scenario, multiple question comes to mind: Why do we continue to listen to proven liars, and what made self-defense political?
We have seen, time and again, where promises of laws making people safe have done nothing of the kind. From the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban (during which Columbine happened), to gun-free military bases, to the recent events in Orlando; restrictions on a person’s right to defend themselves have only proven to make the attacker’s job easier. In addition, with the rise of gun sales, CCW permits, and CCW classes, we have not seen a rise in crime rates. Here in Georgia, we were told that bars and churches would become areas where the drunk or emotional opened fire on impulse. Now, two years later, the people who were protesting outside of the Capitol can’t be seen anywhere. No apologies, no explanations, just moving on to annoy gun rights activists in Texas as they launch Open Carry with the exact same playbook they tried here.
And yet, an argument that has been discredited for over a two decades (since Florida went shall issue) is still treated as worth taking seriously, while the provably stronger argument is ignored. A man shoots up a church in South Carolina, and the networks cover it for days. A man stops a shooting at a nightclub in South Carolina, and it takes the networks days to get around to it. Interestingly, this comes from a group that claims to understand the issue, but is either completely unable to define their own terms or is bruised and frightened by the recoil of a semi-automatic rifle shooters as young as 12 have used at gun ranges.
Politics has no place in a discussion on the right of an individual to defend themselves. You either support a person’s right to defend their lives and livelihoods or you don’t. A person who supports an individual’s right to self-defense acknowledges this, and proposes way to expand self-defense law to match. A person who doesn’t, regardless of whatever reason he may claim, adjusts the law to make self-defense either too expensive or too arduous of a process to even bother with. The law does have limits for what is justified force and what is flat-out murder, of course. But these are to punish instances where, for example, one provokes a response with the intent of killing another. These are not limits to make the right to defend oneself harder to obtain. These are limits to prevent the right of self-defense from being abused.
It should be noted that this constant drumbeat of world-ending doom is finally starting to be directly challenged. Aside from the aforementioned surges in CCW classes/permits and guns, we have seen thousands respond to mass shootings not with fear or calls for gun control, but rather by arming up themselves. Shortly after Orlando, many in the LGBT community started looking to defend themselves, gun sales in and around the Orlando area jumped as people began to look at taking their own security seriously. The emotional argument is running into fields it cannot hope to compete in. It has no place as an anti-terror argument or even as an anti-crime argument.
This pattern will continue, and anti-self defense types will get more desperate and prone to theatrics (as we saw with the “sit-in”).
But the bottom line is this: you are either for self-defense, or you aren’t. It is not only tactically unsound to prevent someone from having the right to defend themselves. It is immoral to do so.
HB60 is two years old. The right to self-defense is expanding as we prepare to celebrate the birth of our nation, which was itself founded on the ideas of individual liberty. And, in truth, that is why the self-defense argument will win. The expansion of the right of self-defense is part of a re-awakening in the nation as a whole. Next week, we will begin a look at the fundamentals of that movement. We will begin with a look at the flag, and its place in society, what it represents then, and what it (and other flags of the era) represent now. The Revolutionary Era, and the ideals from that time, are still as effective now as they were then. It is only a matter of re-learning them, and using them to drive our nation in a considerably better, freer direction.
Next week, will take a break from the news on self-defense, to look at what makes the argument for self-defense indestructible.
Stat informed. Stay Alert. Stay free.